President's Day...

If you have ever been so lucky to have debate a secularist or atheist on the religion of the Founding Fathers, undoubtedly you have heard the retort, "All of the Founding Fathers were diests."

Likewise, from Christians--particularly evangelicals--you will hear that the all of the Founding Fathers were Christian...

Neither is true. The only Founding Father that could be labeled deist--actually believing something compatible with classic deism--is Thomas Paine, and Paine could be easily interpreted to have been atheist or agnostic as well. The rest were obviously theist. How do I know this?

Most of the prominent Founding Fathers that the secularists claim to be deists were George Washington, Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and occasionally John Adams. However, when you read the consensus of all of these men, there is a theme and word that shows up in all of their writings: Providence.

Washington was not an evangelical. Frankin and Jefferson were not even orthodox to historic Christian beliefs. The secularist are right on this point. However, all of these men consistently use the word Providence (of God) in their personal writings. Mentioned also is God's favor towards the United States.

This poses a problem for the secularist: the concept of a provident God is incompatible with deism. One cannot be a deist and believe in the providence of God, for the former holds that God does not interact in the affairs of the world and the latter requires such action on God's part.

To read more: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=878

I Do Have Readers...

Laura and I were talking with her parents last night on the phone, and her father, Dennis Sims, pastor of Ellerbe Road Baptist Church in Shreveport, LA, told us a hilarious story...

To set the context, Laura had them on speakerphone, and Laura and I were lying in our bed...

This past Sunday, I expressed in the midst of my sermon, as I have on several occasions, my frustration with people who have some theological training and express their dissapointment in the Sunday School material for "being too shallow", among other things...

At this point in time, I am literally shrinking under the covers, because I have expressed my sentiments on Sunday School material on multiple occasions, although I can't remember if I had done so within earshot of Dennis before. The funny thing was, Laura and I had "productive conversation" along those lines the day before.

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect to get a seminary education from Sunday School, so "shallowness" isn't really my beef with the material...I get frustrated when I see unbiblical (something totally different than shallow) teaching in the Sunday School material.

...and use this as an excuse to not go to Sunday School at all. Like I said, I have said this before, and no one has ever told me anything in the past. This week, a person who attends our church misunderstood the comments and thought I was talking about him/her. Now this person has complained in the past about the shallowness of material, but he/she attends Sunday School, so she was not the target of my comments. We easily resolved the misunderstanding.

There is another man in the congregation who has a seminary education who hasn't been coming to Sunday School for a while, but he has medical reasons for doing so. However, just in case there was any misunderstanding, I went to visit them [or call them, I [Brent] can't remember].

His wife answered the door/phone and I began to speak with her. She assured me that there is no problem, and the conversation changed paths to another subject. She attends a BSF study, and the subject of the material is the book of Romans, and I have also been preaching through Romans--but the study is a bit ahead of where I am. She told me that the most recent study was on Romans 9. I said, "You all must be dealing with some significant issues, such as the sovereignty of God, election, and predestination. Now from what I understand, you can't address demoninational issues in this study can you?"

She said, "We can deal with any topic the passage addresses. Besides, there are a lot of Calvinistic Southern Baptists. In fact, I believe your son-in-law is a Calvinist, at least that is what it seems from reading his blog."

So I've said all of this merely to say that I ran into someone who has come accross your blog.

I found this to be hilarious! And, if you are reading again, thanks!

"You Are Too Cynical"

My wife and I had a real heart-to-heart yesterday. I love her to death, but she aggravates me when she makes me face reality ;-) One problem we have faced in our marriage comes from by incessant habit to criticize practically everything spiritual. She is an optimist and sees the good in things, and I am quite the pessimist when it come to spiritual matters.

Most of the time, when I read books on Christian theology, or "Christian spirituality", I keep my guard and I don't trust the source immediately. Theologians and preachers have to earn my trust by being reverent and true to God's word--and not sacrificing the careful interpretation of Scripture (or reverence to God's character) to drive home an emotional point. All fail in doing this at some point, others are blind squirrels trying to find a nut--they do so only by accident.

When trying to explain why I am so critical to Laura, I make no sense. None. I've had a hard time justifying it--but this article explains why so well:

Why do we espouse such outlandish concepts as "don't throw the baby out with the bath water"? A better comparison of how we are being told to pick through the bad theology often being put forth today is not the baby/bath water analogy but it is the broken clock analogy. How convincing would it be for those same people who use the baby/bath water analogy to say, "Don't throw out the broken clock because it will be right sometimes"? How many of us would give a hearty amen to that kind of mentality?

Perhaps the reason we are more likely to agree with the baby/bath water analogy is that no one wants to picture a baby being thrown out, but how about the broken clock? I personally don't want to have to pick through a bunch of rancid humanistic philosophy to get to the bits of good theology that might be buried in most of these trendy preachers preaching.

In all honesty, I am really frustrated with the church today. Either one cares about ministry, or she cares about theology. Hardly ever do they meet in the same church congregation. I find completely theologically irresponsible claims in some of the study material that has come across my eyes lately, and would love to be in a situation in which error is not so commonplace.

Just this past week I read material in which these claims were made:

"God loved me most when I deserved it least."

"God accepts me even though I am guilty...Faultfinding is not God's style."

Why are they irresponsible? When does God love me the least? When did I deserve God's love the most? Would God be just in accepting me despite my guilt? Am I still guilty in they eyes of God as a member of the body of Christ? What would God be doing at the Great White Throne judgment?

These claims are filled with sappy feelings, but they lack significantly in biblical truth--and more of us would see this if we stopped reading with our feelings and engaged our minds some.

The sad thing is this: the point of the material was good...it was about demonstraing grace and mercy to our spouses, but my trust of the authors has been severely damaged, so now my guard will be even higher when I read on. I feel that I will have to sift away most of what's there in order to find the nugget of truth.

Daniel Hixon on Calvinism - Part 2

Here is Daniel's explanation of Unconditional Election:

Unconditional election - those who are elected by God for salvation are not elected based upon any work or quality of their own. There are no conditions they must meet in order to become the elect, God simply chose them (apparently arbitrarily since "there is no partiallity with him," which is very problematic). This is necessary because our depravity and the corruption of our wills is SO total that if God did not choose for us, then no one would be saved at all. Unconditional election is aimed at the same problem (our broken will) as Wesley's prevenient grace. If Unconditional election is true, then surely God, who wants everyone to be saved according to 1 Tim. 2:4, would therefore act in accordance with his own will and elect everyone for salvation unconditionally, to do otherwise would seem to imply some imperfection in God if he wills one thing (universal salvation) and then acts to ensure it can never happen. Thus if I believed in unconditional election I would immediately be a universalist Calvinist. I am of the opinion that we are elected according to the foreknowlege of God on the condition of our faith in Christ and our consequent and necessary participation in the covenant and the covenant people of God, and that all humans are called to do that by the grace of God, though many reject this calling.

The Scriptures are clear that God has chosen those whom He would save and did so before the foundations of the world, and these are "predestined" to be conformed to the image of his Son: (Ephesians 1:1-11, 2 Timothy 2:8-9, Romans 8:28-30; 1 Peter 1:2). This choice is not arbitrary, and no Calvinist would ever say so. When the Scripture says that "there is not partiality with God, " particularly in the New Testament, it is in the context of the comparison of peoples, Jews to Greek or slaves to free. (i.e. Romans 2:10-11, Acts 10:34, Ephesians 6:9). We are chosen and predestined according to God's purpose and for His good pleasure. God had a purpose in choosing whom He does for salvation, but the basis of this choice is not any foreseen quality, attribute, or work of that person--it is by grace and grace alone.

1 Timothy 2:4 is the best verse in the Scripture to support Daniel's point, but the comments in 2:4 are made in passing. They are not the primary point of the text. The point of the context of 1 Timothy 2 is not that God wants every human being to be saved--it concerns godly practice and behavior. It could be credibly argued that "all men" of 2:4 could contextually mean "all kinds of men" for Paul is urging Timothy to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" (1:2). In most cases that the term all men (or whole world, all people, all, etc) is used, it is qualified by the context to a specific group of people. Rarely, save the cases in which all of man is described as fallen, does "all" or "world" refer to literally everyone. Not even in John 3:16.

There are passages in which the entire point concerns the doctrine of election by grace. Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9, Ephesians 1:1-11 with the support of 2:1-10, John 6:37-40,44,65, John 10:1-30, for examples.

First, let's look at these passages. In Romans 8:28-30, Paul tells us that "whom (or those) He foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son." The predestined are then called, and the called are then justified, and the justified are then glorified. The word foreknew is proginosko in the Greek. It is simply a compound word combining pro (before) and ginosko (know). In both the English rendition cited and in the Greek, "those" or "whom" is a plural term acting as the direct object of "know." The object of God's foreknowledge isn't a mere choice or act, quality or merit; it is a set of persons. In every case that the word ginosko is used with a human being as the object of that verb, it refers to a relationship of some sort. It could be an acquaintance, or it could even be sexual, but it never refers to a knowledge of a set of facts. In fact, the word ginosko is used in Matthew 7:23 when Jesus says, "I never knew you, depart from me!" Therefore, from the context, it is clear that there are those that God does not foreknow. The same "those" that are foreknown in verse 28 are the ones who are glorified in verse 30. From this passage, it is clear that not everyone is called, either.

This verse is telling us that God knew us in a relationship with Himself in eternity before [the best term we can use to describe the eternal nature of God's knowledge] that relationship came to be in time.

Romans 9 is even stronger: Paul begins by lamenting that the Jews do not know Christ, that he would surrender his own salvation for that of his kinsman. If there were a group of people that should have known that Christ was the Messiah, it should have been the Jews, they had the Law, the service of God, and the covenants--and were the race through which God chose Christ to come. But then Paul tells us that "they are not all Israel who are of Israel." The first Israel refers to the descendents of Abraham, the second refers to God's chosen people. This is a bold statement on Paul's part.

To substantiate this claim, Paul uses the Old Testament. God rejected Ishmael, but chose Isaac--both were sons of Abraham. Then Paul refers to Isaac's children and says God chose Jacob over Esau: "for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works [grace] but of Him who calls." Paul has just demonstrated that mere kinsmanship to Abraham does not make you one of the chosen of God. Then Paul, in response to a possible objection ("Is there unrighteousness with God?"), uses the story of Moses and Pharaoh as an example for God's sovereignty in election and concludes in verse 18:

Therefore He [God] has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

In other words: God can save whoever He wants to, and this salvation is not in a response to action by men. It is initiated by God and is applied to particular individuals. Paul knew people would say that it is not fair for God to not give everyone a chance--especially if it is God who hardens the hearts of men. "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?'"

Paul's answer is not one that satisfies the modern-day critic of Calvinism, who often poses this very objection when confonted with the doctrine of reprobation. Paul essentially says this: We are property, and God is the property owner. Because of our status as creatures, God can do as He wishes with us. "Who are you to reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'why have you made me like this?' Does not the potter have power over the same lump of clay to make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endure with much longsuffering those vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

Pauls couldn't be more clear. More to come on the UE in Eph 1 and 2, John 6 and 10, and others.